Talk:Story : The Charter
= Page Restructuring = In an effort to get people to review these amendments and get this matter, which should have been resolved all ready, resolved, I have: * Restructured it into sections for easy editing. * Deleted a couple of amendments which are to be discussed in a full council. * Removed a lot of incidental chat which is now either out of date or irrelevant. * Ordered the amendments by number and approval rating. Amendments that have been removed from here will be discussed in Spring 1222 - any amendments which fail to gain approval on this page, and are subsequently removed from the voting list can be proposed again in a later council, though I would ask that you check your support base before proposing failed amendments again to make sure that there is actually a chance it will go through, and not simply die a death. The things I have deleted are in the history for this page. I don't care about preserving it for prosperity - I just want this dealt with in the fastest and most convenient manner possible, and right now that means having less to read. Feel free to paste all the deleted material back into this discussion window at the end of this debate if you feel it is necessary, or adding it to the bottom of the document where it won't be in the way. --James 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) = Approved Charter Adjustments = Article 3.5.1 (Addition) A member of the Covenant who enters twilight has their rights and duties adjusted for the duration of the twilight since they are unavoidably detained. Unless they are applicable in '''the special situation or provided for ahead of time all rights and duties except those mentioned in the following paragraphs are suspended.' * grammar: the -> a ? * "the following paragraphs" - which? For: Mnemosyne, Phaedrus, Ambrosius, Longinus, Bedo,Marcus Against: ---- Article 3.5.4 (Addition) '''A member in twilight is entitled to a share of Vis as detailed in article nine paragraph three. If the duties covered by article five paragraph two are waived because of twilight duration then the member is not entitled to a Vis share. ' For: Mnemosyne, Phaedrus, Longinus Against:Ambrosius, Bedo : Please Ambrosius, What have we missed? Should we add something like "unless he the member chooses to provide extra services for the missed time." or is it something else you oppose? My reason for not including this option is since is hard to see the difference between a long twilight and a final one. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::I don't think you have missed anything. Ambrosius would like to wake from a lengthy twilight to find some vis waiting for him. It looks like a simple difference of opinion to me.--James 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 9.3.5 (Amendment) If a Member is absent during the distribution of vis their portion shall be set aside in trust for their return. Unless a proxy has been declared they shall forfeit their choice and their portion shall be allocated from the remainder. For: Mnemosyne, Phaedrus, Ambrosius, Longinus, Bedo Against: ---- = Proposed Charter Adjustments : Probably Approved= Article 3.2.6 (3 votes Aye) (Addition) After two years of Provisional membership, a Provisional Member must apply to the Council without sponsorship to join the Covenant as a Full Member. If under a Greater Vote their request for Membership is approved, they shall be welcomed into our fold and immediately granted Membership of the Covenant, with all attendant Rights, Privileges and duties. If not, their Provisional membership shall be revoked. For: Phaedrus, Longinus, Bedo, Ambrosius Against: :Bedo would like to see a reasonable period defiend in which to apply - suggests wording "After two years of Provisional Membership, a Provisional Member must apply within one year to join the Covenant as a Full member. This applications does not requires sponsorship". etc, --OldNick 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 3.5.2 (3 votes Aye) (Addition) A magus currently in twilight retains his current membership status and keeps the rights detailed in this document under Article four, paragraphs two, four, seven and eight. For: Phaedrus, Longinus, Bedo Against: Abstain: Ambrosius : We might want a provision about Provisional Members here, I do not think their 2 years should count during a "significant" twilight. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) : Good point. Suggested addition "The time spent in Twilight does not count against the period of Provisional Membership defined in Article Three, paragraph four. ---- = Proposed Charter Adjustments : Under debate= Article 3.2.7 (1 vote Aye, 2 vote Nay) (Addition) Provisional Membership may be revoked by a simple vote at any regular council, provided the issue has been raised at least one season earlier and mentioned on the previous regular council. : I revoke my vote against this, as I don't even think it should be discussed at this point and can be raised in Council later, at which time, I will vote IC. --Perikles 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I disagree. Isn't the whole point of this exercise to see what was done in the first process? IMO the charter story was dying a death of 'can't be bothered right now'. I only had Longinus sign it because he would eventually be going to do so in whatever the final form was or he would be removed from the game, not because I thought it was in its final form. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) : I'm not sure if this is really needed, two years is a rather short time, but anyway. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) For: Longinus Against: Mnemosyne, Bedo, Ambrosius : I consider it unequitable that someone's membership, provisional or otherwise can be revoked so easily, when they have done nothing wrong. If they have offended against the Covenant or the Order, these things are already provided for elsewhere in the Charter. If not, then it seems reasonable to give them their two years grace. --Perikles 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :: And if we find that they are an instant source of friction and several magi take an extreme dislike to them, even though they haven't done anything 'legally' wrong? We then have to put up with htem for the full two years. Provisional members are provisional because we aren't sure they should be accepted. If, for whatever reason, we suddenly are sure they should not be accepted, then we should be able to kick them out (hospitality aside) when we feel like. --Corbonjnl 09:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 3.5.3 (1 vote Aye, 2 votes Nay) (Addition) Duties while in twilight consist of those covered in this document under Article five, paragraph one and article five paragraph two. For each full year that a magus is in twilight the duties covered by article five paragraph two shall be waived. :How is someone supposed to protect the Covenant while in twilight - a state when they are pretty much outside the universe? --Perikles 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC) :: This was more or less Longinus's wording, so I kept it. My main reason for putting in the rubber clause in 3.5.1 was to cover 5.1 if there actually was a situation where the members actions could affect the covenant, before I had read up on the clauses. If 3.5.6 goes through it might be more relevant tho. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) :::Who knows how twilight will affect someone. Not all twilights are 'outside the universe'. A twilit (?) magus should still have the duty to protect the covenant, etcetera, as best he is able. If he isn't able, then his best is not much, if he is able, despite being in twilight, then he should still be required to do that best. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :::: There is no use of the words as best he is able used in this amendment, or in the Charter regarding a member's duty. Currently as this stands, I can see this opening the door to a member being punished for being in twilight and not being available to help the Covenant in time of need, or perhaps for even being in twilight at all. Somewhat extreme, perhaps. Anyway, as this point is clearly sticking rather than an oversight in the writing, I shall vote accordingly. :::I've read the rules, and there is no way a twilit magus can do anything for you. A moderately warped magus can sometimes be moved around a bit without their conscious knowledge, but you guys are all going to just fall on the floor and become immovable and invulnerable for the duration at your warping levels. Higher warping levels physically disappear. Whatever happens, their mind and will is gone. Adding an article to your charter on the off-chance that the impossible might happen will probably look a bit daft. --James 06:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :::: My reasoning parallels Corbons, we do not know how any single twilight will affect the magus or the reality he traverses (physically or metaphysically) there might be a situation when what he chooses to do in twilight may affect the Covenant. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::::: Can you give an example to demonstrate what you are suggesting? I'm curious to see how a person who cannot affect the universe, nor be affected by it, can aid the covenant. --James 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::Perhaps the twilight rules have changed? I don't really care either way how the wording is, just explaining the original thought. For: Phaedrus, Longinus Against: Mnemosyne, Bedo ---- Article 6.3.1 (2 vote Aye, 2 votes Nay) (Amendment) Each Member will have one vote on the Council. For: Longinus, Bedo Against: Mnemosyne, Ambrosius You really do want to exclude Tremere maguses from our council?! --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) After much consideration, Ambrosius councils that ignoring the long established tradition of one of the true linages houses by granting votes with no sigils would be disrespectful, at best. --Tim 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) :Longinus replies that there is a difference between votes in-Tribunal and votes in-Covenant. It could be argued that it is disrespectful to said True Lineage to discount its votes entirely from council proceedings, as opposed to a tribunal where the votes of House members are merely held in trust by more experienced members and not lost entirely. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::Soldale Longinus makes a strong argument. Perhaps we could table this amendment and seek the council of the Tremere Domus mangus? Ambrosius would willingly back the the House Tremere preference in this instance. --Tim 10:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :Page 86 of the core book states that mages also have 'a voting sigil, a small physical object used to identify them and vote at Tribunal'. Personally, I don't make distinction between Tribunal and Council. It is merely a matter of scale. I was also of the opinion, possibly from a previous ST or edition, that a sigil was passed on the magus after their gauntlet and was often created by their parens as a gift and a mark of ascension and their new status - and pretty much its ONLY use was in situations exactly like this. Personally, I don't think this has much to do with the Tremere at all. Realistically, they are not an issue at all. I would be very surprised if there were even one Tremere in the whole of the Stonehenge Tribunal. Even if we get players wanting to join who are interested in Tremere, they can make their character creation decision with the knowledge that this is the way things work - which shouldn't be surprising for them, considering that this is the way things normally work. As far as I'm aware, this is a very standard way things are done, and is probably actually a part of the Code. *shrug* --Perikles 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::I make a huge distinction between Tribunal and Council. We have already done so, in fact, by denying "provisional members" the right to vote at council even though they possess a sigil. We can give a vote to whomever we please. I've been in Covenants where the Seneschal was given a single vote to represent the will of the ungifted at the Covenant. I've also been in Covenants where no one got a vote - it was run as a dictatorship. Sigils are, in my opinion, irrelevant to voting at our Council. And should be. JBforMarcus 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :::What Pericles says about the description of a sigil and its use is correct, except that Tremere specifically do not get given theirs after passing their gauntlet but must best their Master in Certamen or something like that. I also agree with JB that there is a massive distinction between Council and Tribunal. In fact they have little to do with each other. I firmly agree that sigils are irrelevant to our actual covenant voting rights though they are a symbolicly attractive method of voting. --Corbonjnl 09:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 6.3.2 (2 votes Aye, 2 votes Nay) (Amendment) A Member may proxy their vote to another Member of the Council. A proxy must be announced on a previous council or be able to produce the Members sigil. For: Phaedrus, Ambrosius Against: Longinus, Mnemosyne, Bedo takes big stick, whacks (random magus) on back of head, steals sigil, enters council, declares (random magus) gave proxy to me, produces sigil, votes, leaves council, returns sigil, covers tracks (magical and mundane) wakes up (random magus) showing all concern over how they hit head. I know, not likely, but there should be more than just a mechanism of present sigil for proxy votes. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Is a magus capable of doing this likely to be capable of vote manipulation by other means? Is this likely to happen? Just some thoughts... --James 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :: Corobon ha a good point, can we work around it some way? I would still like the possibility to declare a proxy without a full council. ::Combine the Sigil with a written note, have we got/is there any intelego magics that can verify its validity? ::Tell a mundane about it and let that mundane be subject to specific Intelego magics? :: --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :I'm voting against this, as in my opinion the word or should be replaced with the word and. I'm also dubious about whether or not this change is even necessary, but that's another issue. --Perikles 03:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 6.3.6 ((3 votes Aye, 1 vote Nay) (Addition) Any Member may request a closed ballot, then voting will be carried out by each Member holding a red or green token and all Members revealing their token simultaneously. For:Phaedrus, Ambrosius, Bedo Against: Longinus :Please Corbon/Longinus what have we/I missed? (You did not contribute to that part of the discussion at the time.) --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::1. No hands. 2. If we are going to have a closed ballot it might as well be secret. 3. Whats the point, its relatively trivial to change the colours by magic anyway, especially of the token you are holding, as you reveal it (slightly delayed in a fumble). 4. Character style (Longinus just prefers an open voting style, or thinks he does at least.) No biggie, if it passes he'll cope. These things don't have to be unanimous you know. --Corbonjnl 09:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :: Added Sam's vote to his own proposal. --James 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- = Rejected Charter Adjustments= These amendments will need to be reworked and proposed in a later council meeting. Article 3.5.5 (Addition) A member may provide seasons of service ahead of time for the fulfilment of duties according to article five paragraph two while in twilight if the council agrees with a simple vote as for regular services. For: Phaedrus Against:Ambrosius, Longinus, Mnemosyne, Bedo : What trouble do you see? From my point of view it is a way to give limited compensation to someone that puts in extra effort for the Covenant, without having to forgo that Magus services when we need them. And to answer Corobons comment, that seems to have disappeared, no I do not plan to go into twilight, but I do not expect to be free of it for ever either. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 6.3.5 (Addition) If two or more Members opposes the voting process proposed by the Princeps the proposed voting process must be adjusted. For: Phaedrus Against: Mnemosyne, Ambrosius, Longinus : Some one commented about two Mages holding the council hostage, well how about the current version that lets one mage hold the council hostage. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :Could we include a way to temporarily for that council meeting replace the Princeps? --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JAMES do not delete this issue! This one is important to Phaedrus. There has to be some limit/check on a powerhungry Princeps. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ---- =Old Discussion= A new page I've kicked off the new page, though I don't really have much to do in this meeting page. The title is a little plain, but never mind. Things to do: * Discuss the charter IC, get it changed into a palatable form, and get it signed. * Elect people into positions as appropriate. * Name the covenant. * Pulse (covering the establishment of the covenant and some development time) That will wrap up the "The Three Kings Inn". We will then start anew in the New Year. I will have a lot of time over Christmas and the New Year holidays, so hope to get a lot done for you all. Do add to my jobs list, and chase me up about things you would like to see done, as there are doubtless things I have forgotten during the recent lull. --James 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) It is nice to see people throwing big handfuls of clause references back at Peri, and thanks to the lull, there's even the chance that he will have forgotten what he wrote, and have to go and look them up again, too. :D To put it in pinball speak, I would like to go 'multiball' on this page, and advance the story at several points at the same time, in order to minimise the effect of Peri's prolonged posting difficulties, by getting as much done as possible before the 1st, when he disappears off into antipodian wilds. As Peri has stated that he is uninterested in the construction of the covenant, I intend to open up the first pulse just after the first of January which will give us all something to do in his absence. Thanks, --James 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Umm, there is no narrative to the later statements (at this stage) as the narrative will depend to some extent on whoever is running the meeting at that point. Otherwise we all just usurp the chairs position and the meeting degenerates. I posted these however so that the player of the chair has some direction or framework in which to write. For example, I think the membership resolution will need to be framed before we can elect a princeps, so Peri will need to frame that, and the start of the election, but if Marcus is elected then Jeff will need to frame the vis discussions? consequently these 'points' are not necessarily even in the right order. But the note said to post things there while we waited for Peri (multiball)... --Corbonjnl 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC) If this is referring to my comment about narrative descriptions, then I meant to communicate that I would prefer to see ' Arnie said "I'll be back." ' rather than ' Arnie "I'll be back." ' The latter style makes the story look like a script rather than a narrative. Cheers for posting multiple items, that should speed things up marvellously. Peri has dropped off the map though, so I suspect he is either travelling to his destination, or newly arrived and thus not likely to use a computer for a day or so. --James 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Charter Issues Twilight What would people like to see in here? It's clear people want some provision for Twilight. I can look at things later, but having just returned, I'm trying to priotize, so if you have some ideas or arguements, stick them here. --Perikles 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Signing Just to move things along, I wrote in Marcus signing. As a player, I'm not too concerned with getting everything hammered out to the point of a bulletproof legal document. Folks who are enjoying the debate, by all means continue:-) JBforMarcus 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Changes to the charter and cutting red tape If the players wish to change this document later - maybe because a flaw has been found in it, or some new idea has arisen, then I am happy for changes to be made, assuming there is an OOC consensus on it. We don't need to drag things through IC if they have no real affect on things actually occurring at that point in the game. Take Twilight, for instance. Unless twilight is a pressing issue in IC, it doesn't really matter if clauses relating to it are added or amended. So while it has been brought up in IC discussion, we can simply slap it on later without needing anything other than an IC nod from all concerned (two week poll, vote=no, silence=yes). Had it never been mentioned in the story, it would simply be inserted as appropriate in the main body of the charter, but as it was brought up in IC discussion, it would be added as an amendment at the end of the document, with some arbitrary date attached.